Kerala Court September 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Chief Electoral Officer Vs. Sunny Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT599
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether an order issued by Delimitation Commissioner under Sub-section (l) of Section 10 of the Delimitation Act and published in the Gazette under Sub-section(2) is susceptible to challenge under Article 226 in view of the specific bar contained in Article 329(a) of the Constitution of India, is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. Petitioner, President of the District Congress Committee, Kannur, has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P8 notification dated 31.05.2005 issued by the Delimitation Commission of India under the Delimitation Act and also for a declaration that the delimitation of constituencies in the State of Kerala in particular in the Kannur district is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Writ of mandamus was also sought for seeking a direction to the Delimitation Commission to consider the various objections raised by t...
Nazeer Vs. Sundaran Rajan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT626
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Tenants-revision petitioners were called for hearing in a petition filed under Section 11(3) of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, on 19.10.2000. Both the tenants did not appear. Accordingly they were declared ex-pane. Later on 21.7.2001 an order was passed directing eviction. The landlord moved execution petition later. It was at that stage the revision petitioners-tenants moved I.A.Nos. 1859 and 1860 of 2002 before the Rent Controller to set aside the ex-pane order of eviction passed on 21.7.2001, and to condone the delay of 326 days in that regard. Both these petitions were jointly disposed of by the Rent Controller finding that even Exhibits Al and A2 medical certificates produced in respect of each of the petitioners did not explain reason for their absence on 19.10.2000 when they were called for hearing. An appeal was taken. The appellate authority also concurred with the said finding.2. It is contended by the revision petitioners that though...
Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT396
K.K. Denesan, J.1. The question for consideration is whether the Secretary of a Municipality is competent to suspend the Municipal Engineer, invoking Section 49(1)(k) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to for short 'the Act') and/or Rule 15 of the Kerala Municipal Common Service Rules (for short 'the Rules') made under the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, 1961 which stands repealed with effect on and from 30th May, 1994.2. Petitioner, while working as Municipal Engineer in the 4th respondent-Municipality, has been placed under suspension as per Ext. P4 order dated 20-5-2005 passed by the 5th respondent who is the Secretary of the Municipality. At the relevant time the 6th respondent was holding the post of the Secretary and she has been impleaded eo-nominee.3. Brief facts leading to Ext. P4 may be stated as follows: The Municipal Council of the 4th respondent resolved that the Secretary of the Municipality shall offer explanation with respect to 10 items refer...
V. Suresh Kumar Vs. V.C. Raveendran and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)26; II(2007)BC298; 2005CriLJ4756
K. Thankappan, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Complainant against the acquittal of the accused in C.C. No. 174 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-V (Special Court for Mark List Cases), Thiruvananthapuram.2. The above case was taken on file on the basis of a complaint filed by the appellant alleging that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and acquitted the accused on 13-11-2003 under Section 256(1), Cr. P.C. on the ground that the complainant was absent on the date of posting of the case and no steps were taken by the complainant for proceeding against the accused under Sections 82 and 83, Cr. P.C.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the absence of the complainant-appellant was not wilful and that the appellant did not appear before the Court on 13-11-2003 as the date of posting of the case was wrongly noted by ...
State of Kerala Vs. T.P. Nandakumar and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4469
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Whether an order rejecting the privilege claimed by the State in producing a report submitted by the DIG of Police, Ernakulam to the Government in respect of illegal trade in kidney is revisable under Section 397 of the Code Whether the State is entitled to the privilege claimed in respect of the report submitted by the DIG of Police ?. Whether the report relates to the affairs of the State These are the important questions to be decided in the revision.2. Second respondent a private hospital at Kozhikode represented by its Managing Partner filed a complaint under Sections 499 and 500 read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioner and others which was taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate. Accused pleaded not guilty and evidence on the side of the second respondent was recorded. Part of the defence evidence was also recorded. At that stage, first respondent filed a petition to summon and produce a report submitted by the DIG of Police, Ernak...
Surendran Vs. Mavelikara Primary Co-op. Agrl. and R.D. Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT619
K. Hema, J.1. Can an amount due to a Co-operative Society from its member be recovered from the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG, for short), under Section 37 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 ('the Act' for short)? Can such dues be recovered from DCRG under Rule 3 Part III, Kerala Service Rules (KSR, for short)? What does the term 'salary' mean in this context? These are the three main questions which are to be considered in this appeal.2. Brief facts are as follows: Appellant retired from government service on 30.6.2000 as Sub Registrar. But, DCRG was not paid even after expiry of two years of retirement and hence, he filed O.P.No. 22258 of 2002 before this Court. Accordingly, this Court directed for fixation of liability and payment of DCRG within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. Thereafter, 2nd respondent-District Registrar issued Ext.P8 letter dated 26.2.2003 to Sub Treasury Officer to withhold an amount of Rs. 76000/- from appellant's DCRG, t...
Vasanthi Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT288
K.K. Denesan, J.1. The issue involved in these Writ Petitions is the same. Therefore they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Petitioners were appointed as Hospital Attendants Gr.II, a post coming under Category No. 4 of Rule 1 of the Kerala Last Grade Service Rules, for short the 'Rules'. The method of appointment to the post of Hospital Attendant Gr.II as laid down in Rule 5 of the Rules, is as follows:--(i) 50% of the post in the departments of Health Services, Indian Systems of Medicine (including Ayurveda Colleges), Homoeo, Employees' State Insurance and Medical Colleges shall be filled up by Promotion of Part time contingent employees in these departments concerned on the basis of seniority by the respective appointing authorities.(ii) The remaining 50% of the posts in the departments specified under item (i) shall be filled up by the respective appointing authorities by promotion from the candidates advised by the District Collectors from the common seniority list of Part...
Mohanan Vs. M.A.C.T.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT273
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Impounding of a document and imposition of penalty under the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 is the matter dealt with in this case. Two questions arise; (1) what is the procedure to be adopted when an insufficiently stamped document is merely produced/brought to the notice of the court/public officer. (2) What is the procedure to be followed when an insufficiently stamped document is tendered in evidence before a court. Ext.P4 order passed by the M.A.C.T., Moovattupuzha in O.P.(MV) No. 1744/95 is under challenge. As per the said order, the Tribunal invoked Section 33 read with Section 37 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 and impounded a document. It is not in dispute that the document was not taken in evidence, it was only produced. It is an agreement regarding the sale of the vehicle; an agreement for sale of the vehicle according to the petitioner and an agreement of sale according to the Tribunal. Finding that it is an agreement of sale, the Tribunal took the view that the st...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sivankutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-08-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC653; AIR2006Ker20; [2006(1)JCR395]; 2005(4)KLT108
ORDERK.P. Balachandran, J.1. The interesting question of vast legal importance which comes up for consideration before us upon a reference by a Division Bench is the following: --'Whether the insurer is liable to pay compensation to the injured in a motor vehicle accident even if it has cancelled the policy issued in relation to the offending vehicle for non-payment of premium, (the cheque issued towards payment of premium having been dishonoured) in respect of accident that has taken place within the period specified in the policy but that has taken place after the cancellation?'2. The Referring Bench was of the view that the principles laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Raghu (2001 (3) KLT 515) required reconsideration by a larger bench on analysing the provisions of Sections 147(5) and 149(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur and Ors. (1998 (1) KL...
Afzal Agency Vs. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT821
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question posed for consideration in this case is whether adjudicatory authority under the Customs Act could impose redemption fine in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act for export when liability to confiscation under Section 111 is established.2. Applicant had imported consignment of 53.97 metric tones of Iran origin dates valued at Rs. 3,38,668 bill of entry No. 115570 dated 12-6-2002. On analysis by the Port Health Officers the goods were found to be not in conformity with the general standards and hence violated the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The dates were infected with insects. Original authority had therefore confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with Section 6 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act since goods were prohibited for import under Section 111 of the Customs Act. Consignment therefore could not be cleared. According to the applicant, suppliers of cargo M/s. A1 Dahamosh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »